User talk:Mel Etitis/New anti-Semitism mediation

Would those involved in the disputes at New anti-Semitism each give a brief, neutral statement of the issues, and then say how they think that the issues should be resolved? Please try to avoid mentioning other editors by name, or including references to grievances; at this stage (and, I hope, throughout the mediation process) I shall be trying to keep the discussion wholly away from any animosity that has developed. In other words, my hope is that this page can constitute something of a clean sheet.

If there's anyone involved whose name I've left off, please feel free to add yourselves; I'd like to restrict this to those who are already involved, though.

I've moved debate to User talk:Mel Etitis/New anti-Semitism mediation debate page, but I'm hoping that people will stick to presenting their own views for the moment, and not challenge each other.

CJCurrie
There are several interrelated controversies concerning the introduction to this article. The first concerns the term "New anti-Semitism" itself. I do not believe anyone in the present discussion disputes that there has been a phenomenon of increased anti-Semitism in recent years. Where there is disagreement concerns the nature and extent of this phenomenon.

The term "New anti-Semitism" represents one interpretation of the phenomenon of contemporary anti-Semitism. The specific details of this interpretation are well known, and for the most part are not in dispute. Proponents argue that the phenomenon emanates from the Left, and is grounded in anti-Zionism and opposition to the state of Israel. It is also said to take an unduly tolerant position toward anti-Semitism in Muslim culture (which itself is sometimes included in the definition of NAS).

The problem is that this definition is politically charged, and represents only one side of the argument. Various authors have criticized the term as too encompassing, and have suggested that it is frequently used with the intent of silencing debate. Some, including Brian Klug, have argued that it improperly conflates all anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.

The introduction to Wikipedia's "NAS" entry should define and explain the prevalent definition of the term, and should give fair voice to the arguments made by its proponents. It should not indicate that these arguments are above disputation, however, nor should it imply that proponents of the term represent the correct side of the debate.

The introduction should also indicate the existence, and nature, of opposition to the term.

The second controversy concerns the use of sources.

Throughout the course of our discussion, another contributor to the debate has repeatedly argued that the article should define "NAS" in accordance with how the term is defined by "reliable sources on the subject" (or words to that effect). This author has justified his/her own definition with reference to several works written specifically on the subject of "NAS".

The problem with this approach is that works written specifically about "NAS" will not necessarily yield the most neutral or unbiased view of the controversy. Since the term is itself disputed, one might rationally assume that most "investigations" or "exposes" of the "NAS" will tend to represent only one side of the argument.

The research I've done so far does nothing to counter this assumption.

The specific works cited as "evidence" of the NAS include:


 * Pierre-Andre Taguieff's "Rising from the Muck", a shrill and intemperate polemic which casually and repeatedly links peace demonstrators and French multiculturalists with the ideology of al-Qaeda. Tony Judt has described this work (accurately, IMO) as "hysterical" and "mischievous scare-mongering".  If anyone's curious, Taguieff is a former Socialist who seems to be drifting toward the camp of Nicolas Sarkozy.
 * Ron Rosenbaum's "Those who forget the past". This series of essays is more balanced than Taguieff's piece, but it is still not a neutral or fully objective examination of the subject.  One of Rosenbaum's arguments is that the current wave of anti-Semitism will almost certainly lead to a "second holocaust" in the near future.  This view is opposed by Leon Wieseltier, who challenges Rosenbaum's assertion as a grotesque overreaction to developments in the Israel-Palestine conflict.  Wieseltier's essay, in turn, is followed by a piece from Ruth R. Wisse, who for all intents and purposes likens him with the North American authors who downplayed initial reports of the Holocaust in the early 1940s.  I can fully understand why Naomi Klein refused Rosenbaum permission to reprint her essay on the subject.
 * A blog entry from Warren Kinsella, a Canadian political figure whose credibility as an objective source should be considered tenuous even at the best of times. Kinsella is notorious in Canada for selective half-quoting and drive-by smear efforts that mar even his more credible stabs at journalism.  Readers may note that one of Kinsella's best-known works, Web of Hate, contains several flattering references to leaders of the Jewish Defence League, which is considered a terrorist organization by most mainstream Jewish groups.  Statement withdrawn.  Kinsella does not support the Jewish Defence League. 04:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Phyllis Chesler's "New Anti-Semitism", a polemic which argues that there is no practical difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

These examples should demonstrate my point. Whatever their strengths or weaknesses, and whether or not one chooses to believe them, these sources are emphatically not neutral or objective assessments of the debate concerning a "New anti-Semitism". I have no difficulty using them to demonstrate a particular position or POV, but I would absolutely reject their usage as neutral or reliable assessments of the larger issue.

I will continue with my comments later. CJCurrie 01:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Further to the above:

I would note that certain contributors have shown a reluctance to incorporate sources critical of or at variance with the "NAS" into the article's introduction. Citations from Tariq Ali and David Clark have been deleted, as have references to a 2002 European Union report which identifies contemporary anti-Semitism as emanating from several sources (radical left, radical right and radical Islam). The reasons for these deletions have not always been made clear. While these source materials (and others written from a similar perspective) may not represent the majority view on this subject, they are emphatically not "fringe", and merit inclusion in the article.

A third controversy concerns what I consider to be a contradictory definition of "NAS" in the introduction.

The current introduction defines "NAS" as both "a new type of anti-Semitism" and "a contemporary international resurgence in anti-Semitism". I do not believe that these definitions are identical, or even necessarily compatible. If the "NAS" is a new type of anti-Semitism, then it cannot be held responsible for all aspects of the contemporary resurgence. If it is the contemporary resurgence, then it cannot be narrowly defined as a new type of anti-Semitism. I have submitted a 2002 EU report as evidence that the contemporary resurgence is emanating from more than one source.

The opening paragraph of this article should identify what the term is and how it has been defined. It should not make a dubious claim about the role of "NAS" in current world affairs.

A fourth controversy concerns alternate usages of the term. The term "NAS" is defined in a particular manner in this article, but the actual words can be used to represent entirely different phenomena. Some have described anti-Arab prejudice and/or Islamophobia as being a "new anti-Semitism"; others have simply used the term in a more generic sense (ie. "anti-Semitism that is happening at the present moment"). The article should give some indication of these alternate meanings. CJCurrie 22:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources for consideration:


 * Tony Judt, "Goodbye To All That"
 * Norman Finkelstein, "Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History" (reviews here, here and here) (interview here)
 * Peter Beaumont, "The new anti-Semitism?"
 * Madeleine Bunt, "The new anti-semitism"
 * Earl Raab, "Is There a New Anti-Semitism? (1974 precis, with a link to the full article)
 * Avi Shlaim, "A debate: Is Zionism today the real enemy of the Jews"
 * Amos Friedland, "Imperial Democracy" (review of Natan Sharansky's "The Case for Democracy")

Some context:

The "New anti-Semitism" article had a significantly different introduction on 16 June 2005. This prior version distinguished the general phenomenon of "new anti-Semitism" from the specific theory of "New anti-Semitism", and noted the latter's controversial linkage of anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism.

Significant changes followed. I would draw the attention of readers to an edit from 09:01, 18 June 2005, which (i) seems to undermine the distinction between "new" and "New" anti-Semitism, and (ii) removes the phrase "This view presupposes a connection between the New anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism". Another editor later attempted to restore the distinction between "new" and "New", at which time the first editor reverted the page back to her version.

The introduction was then altered again on 25 December 2005 by an editor with a very limited posting history. This edit defines "NAS" more narrowly, though also noting that the term may be used in different ways to mean different things.

A subsequent edit on 3 January 2006 marks another significant change, including the first insertion of the phrase, "The new anti-Semitism is closely associated with the Left and its opposition to Zionism, and to the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland." This is stated as a matter of fact, although the previous sentence indicates that this "new form" is only "alleged".

This edit from 5 March 2006 removes all reference to the general meaning of the term, and in so doing removes the distinction between "new" and "New" anti-Semitism. It also elevates the "NAS" from "a theory" to "a fact".

I am not certain that any of these changes were for the better -- the intro of 16 June 2005 seems far more lucid and balanced than that of 10 April 2006. I will also observe that the edit summaries (apart from that of 25 December) give little indication of the definitional changes.

Comments are welcome. CJCurrie 22:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

HOTR
My basic concern is that when I came across the article it treated New anti-Semitism as a fact rather than a theory. Moreover, several editors behave as if there is a consensus in academia about NAS and that the theory is "mainstream" when, in fact, it is hotly contested and promoted by a small minority of experts on racism, anti-Semitism etc, indeed most of the proponents are polemicists rather than serious theorists. I should add that I am certainly not contesting the fact that there has been an upsurge of anti-Semitic acts in the early years of this decade. What I believe is theory is the reason for that upsurge, the relationship of that upsurge with "the left" and the suggestion that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are identical or similar phenomena. I am concerned that when protection is lifted those problems which I found in the article a few weeks ago will creep back in particularly as there are several editors who fail to see what I have mentioned as problems and have resisted attempts at correction. Homey 20:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment to SV's comment below: So Tariq Ali is ok but not when he writes in Counterpunch? That strikes me as somewhat bizarre-- if a writer is acceptable his medium shouldn't be an issue. Does a credible writer suddenly become incredible if his piece is published in Counterpunch? Does an article by Maureen Dowd become acceptable if it is printed in the NY Times and become unacceptale when reprinted in the Daily Mirror? If that's the only problem then take, instead, his article as published in The Palestine Chronicle which, I believe, is where it originally appeared before Counterpunch picked it up. Conversely, articles in the Guardian seem to be ok if it's a column by Nick Cohen but not when it's a column by David ClarkHomey 15:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

(Debate removed; this isn't the place for it. I've created User talk:Mel Etitis/New anti-Semitism mediation debate page, but I hope that people can refrain from jumping straight into this sort of debate.)

Adding sources for consideration, excising debate:
 * My views are generally in line with those expressed by Brian Klug in this essay in the Nation The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism.

"Brian Klug is associate professor of philosophy at Saint Xavier University, Chicago, and senior research fellow in philosophy at St. Benet's Hall, Oxford. He is US consulting editor of Patterns of Prejudice, published by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research in London"Homey 16:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

See also this exchange in a subsequent issue of the Nation where Klug takes on the contention that "binationalism" (ie the notion of a secular, binational state which is neither a Jewish state nor a Palestinian state per se) is anti-Semitic... the logical implication of NAS is that it is as binationalism denies the right to a Jewish state per se. Homey 16:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * More by Klug: No, Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism,
 * The collective Jew: Israel and the new antisemitism, Brian Klug, Patterns of Prejudice, Vol. 37, No. 2,
 * Israel, Anti-Semitism and the left by Klug


 * See also Sense on Anti-Semitism by Antony Lerman (executive director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research from 1991 to 1999) originally published in Prospect


 * Letter from London on NAS by D.D. Guttenplan, author of Holocaust on Trial (on the David Irving trial)


 * No its not anti-Semitic by Judith Butler in the London Review of Books

Homey 17:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Uri Avinery]'s speech on anti-Semitism in which he says "'...the curse of anti-Semitism must not be abused in order to choke every criticism of my state. We Israelis want to be a people like any other people, a state like every other state, to be measured by the same moral standards as others.'"


 * Incidentally, on the question of whether the Isreali government has equated general criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism see this 2003 interview with Ariel Sharon
 * Question: Mr prime minister, in Europe there is an attempt to distinguish between an anti-Semitism that should be condemned and a legitimate criticism toward Israel's policies. Furthermore there are those who think that Israel utilises anti-Semitism as a shield from criticism directed at her.


 * Ariel Sharon: Today there is no separation. We are talking about collective anti-Semitism. (my emphasis) The state of Israel is the Jewish state and the attitude towards Israel runs accordingly. This anti-Semitism is fundamental, and today, in order to incite it and to undermine the Jews' rights for self-defence, it is re-aroused. These days to conduct an anti-Semite policy is not a popular thing, so the anti-Semites bundle their policies in with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Anti-Semitism needs to be fought against. This is a very dangerous thing. However, certainly the right answers could be found in order to fight it. Our demand from the European countries is to fight anti-Semitism in every possible way and vigorously. Of course the sheer fact that there are a huge amount of Muslims, approximately 17 million in the EU, this issue has also turned into a political matter. I would say, in my opinion, EU governments are not doing enough to tackle anti-Semitism. However, there are some countries that incorporate this subject in their educational curriculum, and that is exactly what needs to be done. There is a need to teach, there is a need to explain, there is a need to remind what anti-Semitism caused in the past, and one must know that the damage caused by anti-Semitism ultimately does not affect only the Jews, but also affects those countries where anti-Semitism is rife. They must fight this anti-Semitism. You cannot separate here; Israel is treated as a Jewish state.

Homey 17:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Also see User talk:Mel Etitis/New anti-Semitism mediation debate page

Humus sapiens
I think that Yehuda Bauer (Problems of Contemporary Antisemitism), Irwin Cotler (Human Rights and the New Anti-Jewishness), Bernard Lewis (The New Anti-Semitism) and Natan Sharansky (Anti-Semitism in 3D) define and classify the phenomenon quite well. They are among definitive and reputable authorities on the subject.

For those who maintain that the phenomenon is poorly (or mis-) defined or deny its existence altogether, I believe WP has sound policies to deal with such controversies: WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, etc. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

A couple more notes. While not mentioning the term NAS per se, the US Commission on Civil Rights stated on April 3, 2006 that "anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist propaganda ... that includes traditional anti-Semitic elements, including age-old anti-Jewish stereotypes and defamation ... for example, anti-Israel literature that perpetuates the medieval anti-Semitic blood libel of Jews slaughtering children for ritual purpose, as well as anti-Zionist propaganda that exploits ancient stereotypes of Jews as greedy, aggressive, overly powerful, or conspiratorial ... should be distinguished from legitimate discourse regarding foreign policy. Anti-Semitic bigotry is no less morally deplorable when camouflaged as anti-Israelism or anti-Zionism."

A concern that legitimate criticism of Israel gets suppressed because it gets designated as anti-Semitism is indeed a recurring theme in the texts presented by my opponents. Let's pick a country, say France. Legitimate criticism of France would concern a certain government, political party, policy, politician, etc. Denying the French people the right to nationhood and self-determination would strike me as unfair. Unforunately, this line gets crossed too often in the case of the Jewish state. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg
From my perspective, the issue here is three-fold.

First, the article itself is not very well written. At one time it was almost completely unsourced, though SlimVirgin and I managed to clean that up, but the structure itself was problematic. A re-organization and re-write had been intended, but that became impossible once other editors got involved.

The second issue mirrors the real-life reaction to the term. Specifically, left-wing commentators are offended that a sub-set of the phenomenon - a monomaniacal focus on criticizing Israel and its actions and anyone who supports it - is described as "Anti-semitism". They, instead, describe this as "legitimate criticism of Zionists or Israel", and object to it being classed as "anti-Semitism" of some sort or another. In this they differ little from the monomaniacal focus of far-right commentators (e.g. David Duke), who also object to what they describe as "legitimate criticism of Zionists or Israel" being classed as "anti-Semitism".

Unfortunately, some editors here (well, mostly one), have identified strongly with this left-wing position, and are attempting to turn the article from a discussion of the phenomenon itself into a battleground for debating the legitimacy of the term. Of course, the article itself should (and does) discuss those who object to the term, (as does, for example, the Anti-Semitism article), but that cannot be the very focus of the article.

The third issue is that while there is a great deal of literature on the subject itself, there is little information disputing its accuracy from reliable sources. Thus the editors who feel offended by the term have scoured the internet looking for anyone who says anything negative about it. Unfortunately this often leaves them with people who have no expertise in the field, or who give extreme minority opinions. Even worse, they insist on inserting these minority opinions from non-notables into the introduction, in some sort of attempt to "balance" the information which offends them. This, in effect, would be like insisting that the introduction to the "Anti-Semitism" article include a "balancing" view by Joseph Sobran that the definition of an anti-Semite is "a man who is hated by Jews." Yes, Joseph Sobran did say this, but that doesn't mean the introduction of the Anti-Semitism article must quote him for "balance". Jayjg (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Jbolden1517
The word "New anti-Semitism" is itself ideological and only makes sense within a particular point of view. To pick unrelated examples terms like "salvation", "anti-Americanism" or "crime against humanity" have the same property that the are only meaningful within a particular belief system. A materialist can't answer "how do you plan to be saved" directly they have to challenge the ideology. For populations that don't identify with their government you can't be anti the government so you can be "anti-Soviet" an "anti-Chinese" "anti-Brahman" or "anti-American" but you can't be an "anti-Italian" because Italians identify with Italian culture not Italian government.

Further the belief system that is tapped into by the term "New anti-Semitism" is partially accepted broadly in most of the west and the net result is that the term is effective for propaganda purposes.

The editors have basically split into two camps. Camp A believes the term should be defined in wikipedia the way it is used in common practice. While its perfectly OK for wikipedia to have a section discussing the term's propaganda function its not OK to redefine the term. To continue my analogy this camp holds that materialists are free to dispute the existence of a soul but not to redefine "salvation".

Camp B wants the challenge the underlying ideology because they see the ideology as propagandistic. Again with the analogy they are essentially asserting that by defining salvation in terms of a soul and and then spending the bulk of the article discussion various views of grace we are implicitly embracing an anti-materialistic viewpoint. So they want the reverse of what camp A wants. They want the focus of the article to be on materialist/anti-materialist debate to avoid this implicit embracing.

OK what is the hidden ideology? At the turn of the 19th century a group of people developed a racial theory that while Judaism may not be a particularly bad religion the Jewish people were a particularly evil race. They termed this view anti-Semitism to differentiate from the religious attacks on Judaism. In particular it would apply to people of Jewish ancestry who converted to Christianity. By the late 1940s the idea that racial hatred was more acceptable than religious hatred was rejected and terms like "religious anti-Semitism" were actually used. That is by the 1940's the term "anti-Semitism" carried with it an understanding that, while it certainly was true that there were racial anti-Semites who had no particularly hostility (and sometimes even admiration for the Jewish religion) and religious anti-Semities who were not hostile to the Jewish people (some of whom were even obviously fierce anti-racists), that religious and racial hatred of the Jews ultimately cam from the same source and should not be distinguished.

It is this analogy that is being made with respect to anti-Zionism, in the term new-Antisemitism. We could oversimplify and reduce to:


 * classical anti-Semitism (anti Judaic) = denial of the Jewish people's religious rights
 * modern anti-Semitism (racial anti-Semitism) = denial of the Jewish people's human rights
 * new anti-Semitism (anti-Zionism) = denial of the Jewish people's national rights

with the implication that all 3 are equally illegitimate and in essence all 3 come from the same source. That is not to say in particular instances they come from the same source. For example no one would deny that there are anti circumcision advocates that hate the Jewish religion for promoting circumcision that are indifferent to Zionism and are not racist. Now just as the racial anti-Semite might be offended that his views were being compared to those of a religious bigot and the religious anti-Semite might be offended that his views were being compared to those of a racist, left anti-Zionists are offended at being compared to either. They reject this underlying ideology wholesale, just as the materialist rejects the ideology that lies behind the concept of salvation. But its irrelevant to the definition.

Take for example SlimVirgin's definition of NAS:
 *  It is a form of Judenhass that emanates from the left. It is characterized by the demonization of the world's only Jewish state and of Jews as an ethnicity and a religion. Israel's right to exist as an equal member of the world community is denied. The Jewish people's right of self-determination is denied. Double standards are applied, whereby the actions of the Jewish state are judged according to a different standard from, say, the actions of all the neighboring states around her. Jews as a people are held collectively responsible for the actions of the Jewish state. Symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism are used: for example, blood libels are resurrected, the Jewish state and Jewish people are associated with wild conspiracy theories involving Jews or Zionists or Israelis plotting to take over the world, or being in control of other governments, or being responsible behind the scenes for various acts of terror mistakenly attributed to others. Arab and Islamic anti-Semitism are excused and ignored. Straw-man attacks are engaged in (as in the current intro), whereby Jews are alleged to claim that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism, and that is then used to condemn Jewish groups as unreasonable, and to deny that there is any such thing as the "new anti-Semitism." All of the above is accompanied by an international resurgence of violence against Jews and their synagogues and schools, particularly in Europe. It is found in conjunction with anti-Americanism (because Jews are believed either to control or be too influential with the American government), anti-Zionism, and the anti-globalization movement.

This definition accurately captures the way the word "new anti-Semitism" is used in practice.

The counter debates are phrased in terms of the political effect of this term (I'm picking this reply because it was specifically directed at SV's POV and the person isn't part of the mediation or a long term poster):
 * '' ...Anyways, there are a significant number of individuals who believe that the label of anti-Semitism is too boardly applied in order to silence valid analysis or criticism. Some who have commented on this in academia are Norman Finkelstein, Michael Neumann, John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, Tony Judt, and Juan Cole -- all but Cole have spoken about it in reputable sources in scholarly books and papers. I do think that SV is leaving out significant counter information here.

In my opinion the introduction should define the term not debate its merits. I frequently used the example of tired light which is a theory rejected by almost everyone in physics is not debate in the introduction rather it links off to red shift (which is mainstream view). jbolden1517Talk 23:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Jpgordon
From what I've seen, this is an issue of one group of editors wanting to describe a phenomenon and another group wanting to debate the phenomenon. Whether or not the phenomenon "exists", it is sufficiently considered to exist. There's too much personal opinion driving the work of some editors.

What I've also seen is the talk page turning into a mess of nastiness, to the point where I found myself wanting to protect the talk page. Very unseemly. Thank you for your assist here. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg
My main issue is that a another editor seems to disagree with any proposed changes that are brought up simply on the basis of who has proposed them. This seriously slows down any progress that might be made with the article.

With regards to the other conflict people have mentioned, namely whether or not "New Anti-Semitism" comes from the left. I think it doesn't really make any sense to argue that the term NAS doesn't signifigantly relate to the left, the term was really created to specifically refer to a recent rise in anti-semitism emanating from a group not normally associated with it. I'm not arguing that there hasn't also been a rise in what is considered "normal" anti-semitism, I'm just saying that the above term specifically refers to the rise of anti-semitism perpetrated by people considered to be liberal.

The editors who disagree with "NAS" as it seen by everyone else have tried to remove any reference to the "normal" view on the basis of a few articles of questionable reliability and quality. Even if their sources were acceptable it doesn't make any sense to remove obviously relavent information that has been adaquately sourced.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin
I don't think I can describe the dispute in a way that will meet with everyone's agreement, so these are the difficulties as I see them.


 * 1) Two editors don't acknowledge that the new anti-Semitism (NAS) exists. One editor suggests that NAS is a term of the same type as "Islamophobia," which he also appears to believe isn't a real phenomenon. That is, he believes we should be writing an article about "New anti-Semitism (term)," as we did at one point with "Islamofasicm (term)".
 * 2) In particular, those editors do not acknowledge that there is a new form of anti-Semitism that emanates from the left.
 * 3) They appear to be unfamiliar with the main sources who have written about NAS.
 * 4) This lack of familiarity has led to disagreements about the quality of sources we should be using. For example, those who agree that the NAS exists have used as sources in the lead section Yehuda Bauer, Professor of Holocaust Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Todd Endelman, Professor of Modern Jewish History at the University of Michigan. The editors who argue there is no such thing as NAS, on the other hand, have used a Tariq Ali article in Counterpunch, and a Guardian article by someone called David Clark, who used to work as an advisor to Robin Cook, but whose current position is unknown. (The latter is not in the version now on the page, but is in a previous version. )
 * 5) The lack of (as I see it) reliable sources from the editors who believe there is no NAS effectively means they want to insert their own opinions, then do Google searches in the hope of finding texts to support them, even if they're written by unknown people with no expertise.
 * 6) Those editors have spent several weeks putting forward their own views on the talk page. Several others have tried to explain that the personal views and arguments of WP editors are of no consequence, but this doesn't seem to get through.

I would like to proceed by establishing parameters about sources. I propose we use professional scholars in relevant fields writing in serious publications. Relevant fields will be mostly history, Jewish studies, Holocaust studies, political science. I have no objection to using serious journalists, but I would like us to prioritize academics, other professional researchers, and writers with an acknowledged expertise in the area, particularly in the introduction. I would like us to agree not to use any article in Counterpunch or its right-wing equivalent Frontpagemag, no matter who the author is, because both are extreme and polemical, and appear to function with no, or very little, editorial oversight. We could probably find any opinion in there about NAS that we looked for, no matter how silly. It is particularly inappropriate to use an article from Counterpunch in the introduction, in my view.

I would also like the article to be edited in accordance with the three content policies, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. These jointly state that Wikipedia includes only the published majority- and significant-minority views of reliable sources, giving space to those views in rough proportion to their dominance among those sources. Tiny-minority views should not be included. Editors must not add their own opinions, arguments, definitions, or analyses. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As we have no separate talk page, I'm adding here a paper that gives a pretty good overview of the subject in case Mel is interested. It is Todd M. Endelman. "Antisemitism in Western Europe Today," in Contemporary Antisemitism: Canada and the World, Derek J. Penslar, Michael R. Marrus, and Janice Gross Stein (eds), University of Toronto Press, 2005, pp. 64-79. ISBN 0802039316 He argues that the new anti-Semitism emanates from "a post-Holocaust political culture, an anti-American and pro-Third World orientation of the left, demographic changes in European society, and the heightened level of conflict in the Middle East" (p. 64). A good collection of articles, though of varying quality (written by academics, journalists, novelists, activists), can be found in Ron Rosenbaum. (ed) Those who forget the past, Random House, 2004. ISBN 0812972031


 * Perhaps the editors on the other side could find something that summarizes their position. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel
I don't have a lot of time to give this right now, but I've also had a few issues about the page. This article should not become a stick with which to beat any particular group, but it seems that several people wish to make it so, with several different targets. It changes so often that I hesitate to comment on a particular version.

A few points:
 * The article should certainly define the term "new anti-Semitism" as its various proponents define it, identify clearly who those proponents are, and identify clearly the controversies around the concept.
 * The thesis that there is a "new anti-Semitism" is controversial, and the article should make that clear.
 * In particular, the article should be clear that the thesis tends to center around anti-Semitism that disguises itself as a (more respectable) anti-Zionism, and that the controversy centers less around the question of whether such a phenomenon exists (it's not hard to cite examples of anti-Semites using the rhetoric of anti-Zionism) than around whether the concept is being used to invalidate all critiques of Zionism and of Israel, and especially to invalidate critiques of right-wing Zionism, sometimes including even left-Zionist critiques of right-wing Zionism.
 * In at least some of its versions, the article has claimed that "new anti-Semitism" is specifically a "left" phemonenon. Unless that is part of the definition of the term (making the claim tautological), it pretty clearly isn't the case. Some of the positions of the paleoconservatives have been pretty indistinguishable with the "left" positions that are attacked as "new anti-Semitism".
 * On at least one occasion, I seem to remember that I added some well-cited material (from The Nation) critical of how the thesis of "new anti-Semitism" is deployed politically, and it was pretty promptly removed. Unfortunately, I don't have time currently to search through the article history for this.
 * I would suggest that on the "critical" side, it is important not only to cite reputable voices who deny the phenomenon entirely (if such can be found) but also those who object to how the thesis is deployed politically. That is, it seems to me that the main objection to the term "new anti-Semitism" is that the concept is often used to invalidate as "anti-Semitic" what I would see as legitimate criticism of Israel or its government.

Jmabel | Talk 00:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)